Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: The next stage of handgun regulation - (nf)
Message-ID: <2127@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Oct-83 10:40:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2127
Posted: Thu Oct 27 10:40:30 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Oct-83 08:12:33 EDT
References: <85@tekcad.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 23


Well, Frank, your article was constructed in the following manner:
	Debate (of an emotional nature)
	Conclusions (in the fashion of
		-and that's the reason that I'm right-
	)

Such a construct represents your argument, by default, as
a reasoned argument.  

While the words may not be present, the manner of presentation
suffices to represent your argument as reasoned.  This sort of claptrap is, 
in fact, just what a lot of MM'ites and Creationists use to "prove" their 
particular brand of sophistry.  It works, in many cases, because
people recognize the style of argument, and then assume that
it's a scientific (or reasoned) argument because of the form.

Enough said.  New subject, please.  
-- 
 o   O   from the pyrolagnic keyboard of
   ~              rabbit!jj
 -v-v-
 \^_^/